Cargando…

Traditional versus reverse syphilis algorithms: A comparison at a large academic medical center

OBJECTIVES: An increasing number of institutions are transitioning from the traditional syphilis testing algorithm (initial screening with nontreponemal tests) to the ‘reverse’ algorithm (initial screening with treponemal tests such as syphilis IgG). The aim of this study was to evaluate the switch...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dunseth, Craig D., Ford, Bradley A., Krasowski, Matthew D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5575410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28856228
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plabm.2017.04.007
_version_ 1783260038919356416
author Dunseth, Craig D.
Ford, Bradley A.
Krasowski, Matthew D.
author_facet Dunseth, Craig D.
Ford, Bradley A.
Krasowski, Matthew D.
author_sort Dunseth, Craig D.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: An increasing number of institutions are transitioning from the traditional syphilis testing algorithm (initial screening with nontreponemal tests) to the ‘reverse’ algorithm (initial screening with treponemal tests such as syphilis IgG). The aim of this study was to evaluate the switch in syphilis algorithm at an academic medical center with a population with low syphilis prevalence. DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a six-year retrospective study at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, an academic medical center, comparing the traditional algorithm (n=12,612) with the reverse algorithm (n=10,453). False positives were considered to be positive screens with negative confirmatory testing. RESULTS: Using the traditional algorithm, 93 samples (0.7% of total) screened positive with RPR, with 40 of these samples having negative TP-PA testing (43% of positive screens, 0.3% of total). Using the reverse algorithm, 110 screened positive with syphilis IgG (1.1% of total), and 33 of these samples had both negative RPR and TP-PA (30% of positive screens, 0.3% of total). In both algorithms, higher RPR titers and syphilis IgG values were associated with increased probability of positive confirmation. CONCLUSIONS: In this study at an academic medical center, the reverse algorithm had significantly more total positive screens than the traditional algorithm. Both algorithms produced equivalent rates of active infection. The quantitative difference in positives between the two algorithms are the category of patients who are syphilis IgG positive, RPR non-reactive, and TP-PA reactive. Specimens with higher RPR titers and syphilis IgG values are more likely to confirm positive.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5575410
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55754102017-08-30 Traditional versus reverse syphilis algorithms: A comparison at a large academic medical center Dunseth, Craig D. Ford, Bradley A. Krasowski, Matthew D. Pract Lab Med Article OBJECTIVES: An increasing number of institutions are transitioning from the traditional syphilis testing algorithm (initial screening with nontreponemal tests) to the ‘reverse’ algorithm (initial screening with treponemal tests such as syphilis IgG). The aim of this study was to evaluate the switch in syphilis algorithm at an academic medical center with a population with low syphilis prevalence. DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a six-year retrospective study at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, an academic medical center, comparing the traditional algorithm (n=12,612) with the reverse algorithm (n=10,453). False positives were considered to be positive screens with negative confirmatory testing. RESULTS: Using the traditional algorithm, 93 samples (0.7% of total) screened positive with RPR, with 40 of these samples having negative TP-PA testing (43% of positive screens, 0.3% of total). Using the reverse algorithm, 110 screened positive with syphilis IgG (1.1% of total), and 33 of these samples had both negative RPR and TP-PA (30% of positive screens, 0.3% of total). In both algorithms, higher RPR titers and syphilis IgG values were associated with increased probability of positive confirmation. CONCLUSIONS: In this study at an academic medical center, the reverse algorithm had significantly more total positive screens than the traditional algorithm. Both algorithms produced equivalent rates of active infection. The quantitative difference in positives between the two algorithms are the category of patients who are syphilis IgG positive, RPR non-reactive, and TP-PA reactive. Specimens with higher RPR titers and syphilis IgG values are more likely to confirm positive. Elsevier 2017-04-29 /pmc/articles/PMC5575410/ /pubmed/28856228 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plabm.2017.04.007 Text en © 2017 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Dunseth, Craig D.
Ford, Bradley A.
Krasowski, Matthew D.
Traditional versus reverse syphilis algorithms: A comparison at a large academic medical center
title Traditional versus reverse syphilis algorithms: A comparison at a large academic medical center
title_full Traditional versus reverse syphilis algorithms: A comparison at a large academic medical center
title_fullStr Traditional versus reverse syphilis algorithms: A comparison at a large academic medical center
title_full_unstemmed Traditional versus reverse syphilis algorithms: A comparison at a large academic medical center
title_short Traditional versus reverse syphilis algorithms: A comparison at a large academic medical center
title_sort traditional versus reverse syphilis algorithms: a comparison at a large academic medical center
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5575410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28856228
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plabm.2017.04.007
work_keys_str_mv AT dunsethcraigd traditionalversusreversesyphilisalgorithmsacomparisonatalargeacademicmedicalcenter
AT fordbradleya traditionalversusreversesyphilisalgorithmsacomparisonatalargeacademicmedicalcenter
AT krasowskimatthewd traditionalversusreversesyphilisalgorithmsacomparisonatalargeacademicmedicalcenter